{"id":201291,"date":"2008-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-21T17:27:59","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T11:57:59","slug":"state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9231\/2008\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9231 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local  Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships  wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves  a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be  circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 3 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHIMMATBHAI\nKOHYABHAI BARIYA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHEMANG PARIKH ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 4. \nMR SK BUKHARI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
RULE.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.S.K. Bukhari, learned advocate appearing waives the service of
\n\tnotice of rule on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
With
\n\tthe consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective parties, present Special Civil Application is taken up
\n\tfor final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
By
\n\tway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
\n\tthe petitioners ?  State of Gujarat and others, have prayed for
\n\tappropriate writ, order and\/or directions   for quashing and setting
\n\taside  the judgement and order dtd.30\/11\/2007 passed by the learned
\n\tPresiding Officer, FTC No.2, Panchmahals at Godhara in Misc.Civil
\n\tAppeal No.102 of 2007 in  allowing the same and quashing and setting
\n\taside  the order dtd.3\/10\/2007 passed by the  learned 6th
\n\t Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhara below application Ex.5 in
\n\tRegular Civil Suit No. 224 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trespondent herein ?  original plaintiff is having a fair price shop
\n\tat village Sajora, Taluka Ghoghamba, District Panchmahals. That the
\n\trespondent ?  original plaintiff is granted license  to run the
\n\tfair price shop under the Pandit Din Dayal Grahak Bhandar Scheme of
\n\tthe State Government and he has been allotted  437 Ration Card
\n\tHolders having population of 3730.  That the respondent is a
\n\tlicensee  under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act,
\n\t1955 and is provided wheat, rice, oil, kerosene etc. for selling it
\n\tto the poor people more particularly, to the people leaving Below
\n\tPoverty Line (BPL) as per the Government Policy at reasonable rate.
\n\tThat in the public interest, it was decided  to have another fair
\n\tprice shop by way of division  in two parts of the same village.
\n\tBeing aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent herein ?
\n\toriginal plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 224 of 2007  for
\n\trestraining the petitioners ?  original defendants from reducing
\n\tthe Ration Card Holders attached with his fair price shop of the
\n\tplaintiff and restraining the petitioners ?  original defendants
\n\tfrom opening any other fair price shop in the said village.  In the
\n\tsaid suit, the petitioner – original plaintiff filed application
\n\tEx.5 for interim injunction. It was contended on behalf of the
\n\toriginal plaintiff that as per the Government Circular \/ Resolution,
\n\tthere  should be minimum certain number of Ration Card Holders
\n\tattached with a fair price shop looking to the population and it was
\n\t further contended that if the Ration Card Holders  are reduced, he
\n\twill not get sufficient commission and it will not be possible for
\n\thim to run the fair price shop. It was contended  on behalf of the
\n\toriginal plaintiff that the said action is in breach of the
\n\tprinciples of natural justice as no notice or hearing has been
\n\tafforded  to the plaintiff. The application Ex.5 was opposed  by the
\n\tpetitioners herein ?  original defendants by submitting that  the
\n\tsuit itself is not maintainable. It was also further submitted that
\n\tas such the discretion is with the authority to allow the number of
\n\tRation Card Holders  and\/or to open the fair price shop looking to
\n\tthe need of the village people and in the public interest. It was
\n\tsubmitted that  the paramount consideration is  the public interest,
\n\t interest of the village people and the Ration Card Holders.  It was
\n\tfurther submitted that the licensee  has no right,  much less any
\n\tlegal right,  to have particular Ration Card Holders. It was also
\n\tfurther submitted that even in the Resolution relied upon by the
\n\tplaintiff and as per the policy, it is provided that as far as
\n\tpossible, but certainly any licensee and\/or fir price shop owner has
\n\tno right, whatsoever, to ask for a particular number of Ration Card
\n\tHolders.  It was further submitted
\n\ton behalf of the plaintiff that  as per the Resolution, there shall
\n\tnot be new fair price shop within the radius of 3 KMs.  The
\n\tlearned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhara, after
\n\thearing both the sides, vide order dtd.3\/10\/2007 rejected the
\n\tapplication Ex.5 holding that the Collector has  jurisdiction  to
\n\topen to forward proposal for opening new fair price shop and the
\n\tsame is in consonance with the Government Resolutions, and
\n\ttherefore, the interference by the Civil Court is not required. The
\n\ttrial court further observed that the plaintiff can pray for hearing
\n\tbefore the competent officer but it appears from the record that the
\n\tplaintiff has not submitted any documents on record to show that he
\n\thas made any representation to the competent officer.  The trial
\n\tcourt further observed that if the interim injunction is granted,
\n\tthe entire suit will be allowed at the interim stage. It is also
\n\tobserved that if the interim injunction  is granted, the same would
\n\tadversely affect to the interest of the public at large and on the
\n\tcontrary, if new fair price shop is opened, the plaintiff is not
\n\tlikely to be adversely affected and if any loss is caused to the
\n\tplaintiff, the plaintiff can pray for damages. The trial court held
\n\tthat the Collector has jurisdiction and therefore, it will not be
\n\tproper to interfere and grant the interim injunction. The trial
\n\tcourt held that prima facie case and  balance of convenience are not
\n\tin favour of the plaintiff and if the interim relief as prayed for
\n\tis not granted, the plaintiff is not likely to suffer irreparable
\n\tloss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Holding
\n\taccordingly, the trial court rejected the application Ex.5 preferred
\n\tby the plaintiff ?  respondent herein. Being aggrieved by and
\n\tdissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court  below
\n\tapplication Ex.5 in rejecting the same, the respondent herein ?
\n\toriginal plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate court,
\n\tand the appellate court, after hearing both the sides, vide
\n\tjudgement and order dtd.30\/11\/2007 allowed the side appeal, by
\n\tquashing and setting aside the order passed by the trial court below
\n\tapplication Ex.5. The appellate court observed that no opportunity
\n\tof being heard is given to the plaintiff before taking decision to
\n\topen  new fair price shop.  The decision of reduction of the Ration
\n\tCard Holders and opening new fair price shop, is in breach of the
\n\tprinciples of natural justice, as no notice has been issued upon the
\n\tplaintiff ?  respondent and that as per the Government Resolution
\n\tthere cannot be a second fair price shop within the radius of 3 KMs.
\n\tThe appellate court further directed the original defendants ?
\n\tpetitioners herein not to open any new fair price shop at village
\n\tSAJORA,  Taluka;  Ghoghamba, District Panchmahals  and not to
\n\treduce the essential commodities and Ration Card Holders   of the
\n\tplaintiff, till final disposal of the suit. The appellate court
\n\tfurther directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six
\n\tmonths.  Being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the
\n\tappellate court in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting
\n\taside the order passed below application Ex.5, the petitioners ?
\n\toriginal defendants have preferred present Special Civil Application
\n\tunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Hemang
\n\tParikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
\n\tthe petitioners has vehemently submitted that  the appellate court
\n\thas materially erred in allowing the appeal and granting interim
\n\tinjunction as prayed for by the plaintiff and restraining the
\n\tpetitioners  – original defendants from reducing the Ration Card
\n\tHolders attached with the fair price shop of the plaintiff and
\n\tfurthers restraining the petitioners ?  original defendants from
\n\teither opening another fair price shop or division of existing fair
\n\tprice shop in the same village. It is submitted that what is
\n\tprovided in the Resolution is that  as far as possible the distance
\n\tand the Ration Card Holders should be maintained. However, in the
\n\tlarger public interest and   in the interest of  the village people
\n\tand the Ration Card Holders, the same can be reduced. It is also
\n\tfurther submitted that as such the suit itself is not maintainable,
\n\tas it is realm of policy of the Government to open the fair price
\n\tshop and to allot the Ration Card Holders to a particular fair price
\n\tshop.  It is also further submitted that  there is no question of
\n\taffording any opportunity to the licensee, as the licensee\/fair
\n\tprice shop owner has no legal right to  ask for particular number of
\n\tRation Card Holders. Therefore,  it is requested  to allow  the
\n\tpresent Special Civil Application and quash and set aside the order
\n\tpassed by the appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.K.\n<\/p>\n
\tBukhari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  respondent ?
\n\toriginal plaintiff  has submitted that as rightly held by the
\n\tlearned appellate court, before reducing the Ration Card Holders,
\n\tno opportunity   has been given and\/or no notice has been issued to
\n\tthe respondent ?  plaintiff  and hence the said action is  in
\n\tbreach of the principles of natural justice and the appellate court
\n\thas rightly allowed the appeal and granted the interim injunction as
\n\tprayed for by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss
\n\tthe present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent ?
\n\toriginal plaintiff has no vested right to ask for a particular
\n\tnumber of Ration Card Holders attached with his  fair price shop.
\n\tThe plaintiff has been granted license  to run the fair price shop
\n\tunder the scheme of the State Government and it is ultimately for
\n\tthe State Government to decide how many number of Ration Card
\n\tHolders should be allotted to a particular fair price shop. The
\n\tinterest of the Ration Card Holders and the village people is the
\n\tparamount consideration and  as there is no vested legal right in
\n\tfavour of the plaintiff, there is no question of issuing any notice
\n\tand\/or giving any opportunity to the respondent ?  original
\n\tplaintiff  before taking decision to reduce the Ration Card Holders.
\n\tPrima facie, it appears that even the suit itself is not
\n\tmaintainable. However, without entering into the said larger
\n\tquestion, it appears that the trial court has rightly refused to
\n\tgrant the interim injunction as prayed for. As such the relief
\n\tgranted prayed for by the plaintiff by way of interim relief, is the
\n\tfinal relief sought in the suit. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme
\n\tCourt   and this Court in catena of decisions, normally court should
\n\tbe slow in granting the interim relief, which may be ultimately
\n\tfinal relief in the suit.  In very very exceptional cases, final
\n\trelief can be granted as an interim relief.  Under the
\n\tcircumstances, the trial court has rightly refused to grant the
\n\tinterim relief, but the the learned appellate court has committed an
\n\terror  and\/or exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and
\n\tgranting application Ex.5  and therefore, the impugned order passed
\n\tby the learned appellate court requires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned
\n\tjudgement and order dtd.30\/11\/2007 passed by the learned Presiding
\n\tOfficer, FTC No.2, Panchmahals at Godhara in Misc.Civil Appeal
\n\tNo.102 of 2007  is quashed and set aside and the  order
\n\tdtd.3\/10\/2007 passed by the  learned 6th
\n\tAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Godhara below application Ex.5 in
\n\tRegular Civil Suit No.224 of 2007 is restored. Rule is made absolute
\n\taccordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
\n\tbe no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9231\/2008 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9231 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1872,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\",\"name\":\"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008"},"wordCount":1872,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008","name":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T11:57:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-himmatbhai-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Himmatbhai on 28 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201291\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}